Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 708 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying resolution it brings to the House floor.

The rule provides for consideration of two contempt of Congress charges laid against Attorney General Eric Holder. You're going to hear a lot of folks say how historic today is. That ``historic-ness'' is why the rule provides for debate and separate votes on both contempt charges. The rule also provides for a motion to refer the criminal contempt charges, if offered by Mr. Dingell, as well as motions to recommit both resolutions.

I don't assume to put words in his mouth, but I'm sure and I'm willing to bet that Mr. McGovern is sitting over there getting ready to tell me it's not enough time. I'm not going to disagree.

But as we all know, before we leave Friday evening to go to work in our districts, we have a lot to get done here. We need to reauthorize our Nation's highway and infrastructure systems. We need to save college students and recent graduates from student loan interest rates that are 2 days away from doubling. We need to move forward with the open amendment process and finish considering the appropriations bill to fund our transportation and housing programs. It's a lot to get done in 2 days. And, frankly, if we didn't put a time limit on today's contempt debate, we could spend days on end talking about nothing but this one issue.

But beyond all of that--beyond floor schedules and expiring authorizations, we're left with this truth: Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was shot on December 14, 2010, and died of those injuries the next day. His family has been looking for answers about what led up to and caused his death for over a year and a half. If we can do anything to answer those questions, then we cannot and should not do anything to make them wait any longer--not another month, not another day, not another hour. Today, the House of Representatives is going to do what we can to get those answers for the Terry family.

Thanks to whistleblowers at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Members of Congress were alerted to the fact that Agent Terry was killed by guns--AK-47 assault rifles, specifically--that our government allowed to walk into Mexico. When confronted with these claims, the Justice Department denied the whistleblowers' claims. What we now know all too well is just how right the whistleblowers were. However, it took the Department of Justice 10 months after their first denial, almost a year after Border Patrol Agent Terry's death, to formally retract their denial about the reckless program that contributed to the deaths of Agent Terry and hundreds of Mexican citizens.

You know, I was a cop for almost 40 years and a sheriff for the last 10. As the head of a law enforcement agency, you have two options when you make a mistake: you can hope it doesn't come out, and if it does, you go into lockdown and deny, deny, deny; or you can get out in front of it, admit you made a mistake, tell the American people you're going to investigate, and then do everything you can to make sure that this never happens again.

As sheriff, I found it was my moral imperative to always admit when we'd been wrong, hold folks accountable, and make my agency better so we wouldn't make the same mistake twice. It's the responsible thing to do, and it takes away any sting of the possibility of a coverup.

That's not what DOJ did. They've gone the other route--hide, deny, and stonewall.

They sent a letter with false information to Congress, the institution that's constitutionally mandated with government oversight, and it took them 10 months to retract that statement. It appears that in those 10 months between lying and admitting the truth, members of DOJ and the ATF colluded to intentionally cover up what happened. What we're trying to figure out is if there really was a coverup, and we need the information to determine the facts.

Yesterday at the Rules Committee, a couple of people mentioned President Nixon and Watergate. And I agree, this is like the Watergate scandal. But President Nixon didn't leave office because of the scandal itself; he was forced to resign because of the coverup.

I said it last night and I'm willing to bet, Attorney General Holder didn't know all the specifics about what was happening with Fast and Furious, but when the facts started coming to light and congressional investigators started looking for answers, he repeatedly kept us from getting information we need. And that has kept the Terry family from getting the closure they need.

Attorney General Holder is responsible for his agency, but he has essentially given his top leadership a free pass.

Mr. Speaker, a law enforcement officer who was employed by the United States Federal Government is dead. Somebody knows what happened to result in his death, and the Justice Department and now President Obama are refusing to release that information to Congress, to the American public, and to Agent Terry's family.

This institution has a duty to oversee the executive branch and to find out what happened. The answers are there. Attorney General Holder knows the answers are there because he's the one who has the documents that contain the answers we're looking for. He's the gatekeeper here, and if he won't give us the information this institution needs to do our duty, our constitutional duty, then we will use every legal and constitutional tool that we have to get to it.

I've heard some people say this is all about politics. In my heart, it's just the opposite. It couldn't be further from the truth. These contempt charges aren't about politics. They aren't about Attorney General Holder, President Obama, or anything else but this: a man died serving his country, and we have a right to know what the Federal Government's hand was in that.

It's clear this country somehow played a role in his death. We need to root it out, find the cause, and make sure this never, ever happens again. These votes today aren't about politics; they are about answers that, at the very least, this country owes Agent Terry and his family.

President Obama promised his would be the most open administration in history. When discussing executive privilege in the past, Attorney General Holder has made it clear that the DOJ won't invoke the State secrets privilege to conceal ``violations of the law'' or ``administrative error,'' avoid ``embarrassment,'' or to ``prevent or delay the release of information.''

Unfortunately, that is exactly what has happened so far with Fast and Furious. It is for this reason why the House today sees no other choice other than to charge Attorney General Eric Holder with both civil and criminal contempt of Congress charges.

I'm going to support both of these resolutions, Mr. Speaker, not because it's the political thing to do, not because it's the easy thing to do, but because it's the right thing to do.

And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts made a statement. This is about a contempt citation because the Attorney General has not provided all the information the committee has asked for. Out of 140,000 pages--by his own testimony in front of Judiciary-- he's given a little over 7,000 pages. That's not reaching out and doing the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), a fellow Rules Committee member.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

You know, it's amazing that my friends forget about history because they referenced history in 2008 as related to House Resolution 979 and House Resolution 980. And you know what they did?

They passed a rule and said it's hereby adopted. You never even had discussion on the House floor like we're going to do today. Never had debate on the House floor. They just passed it in the Rules Committee and said, guess what, it's hereby adopted.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), the chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross).

Mr. Speaker, I yield another 15 seconds to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Judge Poe.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a former law enforcement officer who lost her husband in the line of duty, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Adams).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make it very clear that the House rules of article XI talk about, specifically, j(1) as it relates to the rights of the minority. But you have to ask for that. A majority of the minority has to ask for it. It has to be focused on the issue at hand. They were talking about issues as it related to, I guess, gun ownership, and that was not germane to that issue.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time remains.

I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

We have no more speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is about Agent Terry, who gave his life for this country. This is about what this government has done not to expose the truth but to block the truth. This is about calling on the Attorney General to follow the Constitution. It's about us following article I of the Constitution in regards to our ability to have oversight.

I hear this stuff about witch hunt and about politics and it gets me sick, because I will tell you this: as a former law enforcement officer, we should be more worried about what lousy policies that Attorney General Holder has covered up that caused the death of one of our own in protecting this country. That's what this is all about. This is about holding people accountable.

I hear a lot of things down here. But the rule of law, when I was subpoenaed as a sheriff, we complied with the subpoena. I understand that the Attorney General feels that he's above the law in regards to the subpoena, and I understand the President's come in to protect him.

But we talk about this body and what the American people think. How about we do the right thing, Mr. Speaker, and we move forward and do the right thing in regards to all the Attorney General has to do is comply with the subpoena. By saying that he's bent over backwards, I would suggest to you that under 8,000 pages of documents out of 140,000 is not bending over backwards.

This is about our constitutional responsibility to provide oversight. This is about our constitutional responsibility to make sure that the Federal Government stays on track, that these executive branch decisions that are made don't put more Americans at risk.

Nobody seems to care about the 200-plus Mexican nationals that have been killed. Obviously, Mexico cares because they want to indict those that were responsible for coming up with this failed idea.

This is about Congress doing its constitutional responsibility, holding hearings to find out what happened. And when the Federal Government or branches of the Federal Government stand in the way and obstruct, that's not the right thing to do. My friends on the other side of the aisle should be more concerned that the Attorney General has said to the Congress: Guess what, you don't matter.

Congress does matter. Congress has a constitutional responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to do just that, to have oversight over the executive branch, and the subpoena is a tool to allow us to do that. And, unfortunately, this Attorney General feels he doesn't have to comply. I beg to differ.

I think the American people--but more than that, the family of Officer Terry--deserve to know what transpired and what the end of this is. And I think that we should be protecting those law enforcement officers that are out there today. In the United States of America, they are going to be facing these same guns that were walked during Fast and Furious. If you read the transcripts, hundreds--hundreds--of guns walked. Some have been recovered in the United States. And, unfortunately, some have been recovered in Mexico and have led to deaths in Mexico. One has to wonder how many of those guns are going to lead to deaths here in America.

You know, when I raised my hand, along with everybody else, it was to support and defend the Constitution. When I raised my hand as a sheriff, it was to support and defend the Constitution. And when Officer Terry raised his hand, it was to support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America.

We owe it to all of our law enforcement officers--Federal law enforcement officers, in particular--on this issue, to make sure that they're protected. And to all of our local law enforcement officers who are going to be the first line of defense on the streets of our cities and counties, they have a right to know what this Attorney General's office and the leadership has done, not giving people a free pass because it is expedient to do and because we really don't want to hear what the absolute facts are. Let's just push the facts aside.

Those on the other side of the aisle really don't want to talk about the facts. They want to talk about it is a witch hunt or it's politics.

The facts are clear. Officer Terry is dead. Officer Terry died because weapons were allowed to walk from the United States under the nose of the ATF and under the nose of the Attorney General's office through an OCDETF case. Those are the facts.

I would suggest that we should find out how did that come to pass. And then in regards to what was transpired and sent to Congress and Members of Congress about the fact that it didn't really occur, and then 10 months later, Oh, by the way, you know that memo we sent, it wasn't correct; we did, in fact, allow guns to walk.

We put law enforcement officers of the United States of America at risk because this Federal Government had a botched idea and a bad idea.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor a proud American family with over one hundred total years of military service to this Nation.

In 1980, Violet I. Roebuck, originally from St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, moved with her family, to Lake Placid, Florida.

Harold Roebuck Jr., father to Carlos, Harold III, Venecia and Gisette tragically died shortly after the family's move to Florida during a return trip to St. Croix. their mother, Violet I. Roebuck had the difficult task of raising her five children, including her eldest son Wayne Moorehead, as a working single mother.

Of her five children, four served in the military, each for more than 20 years for a total of over 80 years of service. In addition, Violet's son-in-law Ira Wenze II served an additional 22 years.

With such a strong commitment to this Nation, it's really no surprise that the patriotism Violet had instilled in her children was passed on to a second generation of her family who have now begun their proud and faithful service to this Nation.

Today, Harold Roebuck IV and Eddie Moorehead are following in the footsteps of their parents in proud service to this Nation.

It is important to always remember that families like Violet Roebuck's are clear examples of what makes this Nation so great.

Today, I am humbled to have the opportunity to bring the attention of this house to a family of true American heroes.

To the Roebuck family, God bless you and your family's brave service to this Nation.

With that, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing and honoring the achievements of this patriotic American family.

Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that the integrity of our elections is of fundamental importance to our democracy. We need to ensure that everyone who is eligible to vote has the ability to vote, and those that are ineligible to vote are stopped from voting in our elections.

We also have the responsibility to ensure that this responsibility falls largely on the States to ensure that voters have the right to vote that are eligible to. They do this by making sure that their voter rolls are clean, that their voter rolls are accurate. It's important that States have the ability to do that.

In my own State of Florida and others throughout this country, the Federal Government is being asked to help.

The Department of Homeland Security, in particular, has been unwilling to help those States that are asking for it.

Mr. Speaker, DHS is denying Florida the process to access what is called the Systematic Alienation Verification Entitlement database, or SAVE, as it's commonly referred to. SAVE undoubtedly is the best database for the States to use to cross-reference and cross-check their voter rolls for eligible or ineligible voters.

DHS is denying us access to this database, despite its own documents and regulations clearly stating that SAVE, for voter registration purposes, is one of the permissible uses. This is within their own documents as it relates to the operation of DHS. By denying access to the SAVE database, DHS is preventing States from ensuring to the best of their ability that the integrity of our elections is saved and preserved.

As we move forward with appropriations for Homeland Security, I feel we need to acknowledge the DHS refusal to meet this basic need and a basic request of our States. DHS' stonewalling is not something the people of Florida deserve, and it certainly isn't something that elected officials should tolerate.

Mr. Speaker, Floridians should not be denied the right to the fairest and most accurate elections possible. Floridians' votes should not be diminished because of political maneuvering by a Federal agency. No vote should be counted when it's cast by someone who is not eligible to vote in the United States, vis-a-vis, they're not a citizen of this country.

DHS, through their SAVE program, has the ability to pass that information on to States. Florida is not the only State that has requested this information from DHS. DHS has, I believe, an ethical responsibility to provide that information because it's contained within their own bylaws and operation procedures within the Department of Homeland Security; and they have just stonewalled the States in regard to them trying to make sure their voter rolls are the most accurate possible.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that they are doing a disservice to the American public. Every vote should count. Every vote should count, and DHS should be required to submit the information to the States so they can make sure that their voter rolls are as accurate as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank my friend, Mr. Scott, and fellow Rules Committee member, for allowing me time to speak on this important issue.

This rule brings to the floor a series of health issues that I hear about every day from constituents back home. About 46 million Americans have either a flexible spending account or a health savings account. These are hardworking American families that plan ahead for their health care. They're folks who don't want to be a drain on the health care system. But the Federal Government has the audacity to look at these funds from these families that have put aside for their health needs and see this as money for the government's taking. We need to be rewarding these people, not seeing them as a revenue source to pay for ObamaCare. But the government takeover of health care is going to punish them and encourage them to use more expensive treatment options.

The bill we are considering today will undo ObamaCare's limitation on purchasing over-the-counter medications, freeing both health savings accounts and physicians' offices from these new, burdensome regulations that go into effect.

It will allow families to cash out up to $500 in their unused FSA balances at the end of the year as regular taxable income, and it will repeal a 2.3 percent tax imposed on the sale of medical devices. This tax will make health care more expensive. It will be passed down to the consumer, and it's already costing innovation and jobs in the medical device industry.

I applaud the Ways and Means Committee for their work on this legislation and encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass not only the rule, but support the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, upon adoption of House Resolution 667, amendments number 4 and 6 printed in House Report 112 504 be modified to include the amendatory instructions that I have placed at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 667 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution and of the four rules that it contains.

The rules provide for the consideration of critically important pieces of legislation meant to fund the Federal Government, provide for our Nation's veterans and protect our national security. With this resolution, I have the distinct honor of bringing three appropriations bills to the House floor under open rules. I'm not sure when the last time is that somebody got to say he was bringing three open rules to the House floor at one time, but I am proud to be able to do that today.

House Res. 667 continues the majority's promise to the American people to bring openness, debate, and transparency back to Congress. As a father of three sons in the military and as the Representative of over 116,000 veterans, I'm particularly happy that this resolution provides an open rule for the bill that funds our Nation's veterans programs and meets our military construction needs. We owe our veterans a debt that can never be repaid, but the very least we can do is provide them with the benefits they so bravely and so selflessly earned.

I applaud the Appropriations Committee for the bipartisan way they worked together to fund these programs for our American heroes and their families. It shouldn't go unnoticed that at a time when it seems difficult to work across the aisle, the Appropriations Committee did just that, and they passed it unanimously. We shouldn't play politics with our veterans, and the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill doesn't.

House Res. 667 includes a structured rule for the Intelligence Authorization Act for 2013. This is a bill that authorizes our Nation's intelligence and intelligence-related activities. It includes our National Intelligence Program and Military Intelligence Program. It specifically ensures that nothing in this bill gives the government the authority to conduct any intelligence activity not otherwise authorized by the U.S. Constitution or our laws.

Although this rule may not be an open rule, it is necessarily so. The classified nature of the Intelligence authorization bill means that we can't debate a lot of the specifics of the underlying bill on the House floor. If we were to debate some of these amendments, we would be put in the impossible position of supporting or opposing the amendments based on facts that we simply can't discuss for reasons of national security. Still, in our efforts to be open, the Rules Committee managed to allow nine amendments on this debate. Seven of those amendments are Democratic, and two are Republican. This too is a bipartisan bill, and the Intelligence Committee passed it unanimously with a 19 0 vote. As the minority views of this bill stated, the stakes are simply too high to make our intelligence programs political.

For all of these reasons, I am proud to support this resolution, a resolution that provides for an extremely open process while balancing the transparency with our national security when it comes to debating our intelligence programs.

With that, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I'm always at a loss sometimes when I hear certain things, but this is really about there is no energy policy in America. We're talking about actually investing in some of the resources that we're standing on today in America to help us become more energy independent, not more energy dependent.

We've seen what Solyndra did. We've seen what some of these ideas have been. While some are very intuitive or can lead to some directions that we want to go in, we have resources here today in America that can help us become more energy independent. This appropriations bill actually increases that R&D, that development of clean coal. We have over 300 years of energy just in coal alone. Why would we not look at how we can clean it by utilizing technology to do so? This bill does that.

Mr. Speaker, as we move forward, you've got to remember that three of these bills are open for amendment. My good friend on the other side probably remembers back to the 111th Congress when they never had an open rule on appropriations. But with this, we have three open rules and one structured rule. So if you don't like something that's contained in any one of those three bills, you have the opportunity to amend it on the floor. You can do that.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the to the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's amendment, I believe, was made in order in 2001 when it was Democratically controlled--and it failed in the House. In fiscal year 2012, the Rules Committee actually made the amendment in order but the gentleman failed to submit it on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

If the gentleman would yield, I understand his position as it relates to something that occurred 30 or 40 years ago. But last year he didn't even offer it. It was made in order during the fiscal year, and he didn't even offer it.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my friends on the other side, remember that that's an open rule. If you don't like a portion of it, then amend it. Bring an amendment to the floor. I know they're confused about that, and I know they didn't have it in the 111th Congress, but in this Congress you have the ability to amend it.

No piece of legislation is perfect. That's why you have the ability for amendments. So I would encourage my friends on the other side, or any Member, Republican or Democrat alike, if they want to see something different, amend it. That's the beauty of this.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

I continue to reserve.

I continue to reserve.

I continue to reserve.

I continue to reserve.

I do not.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is a responsible use as relates to a budget that we passed in this House. These appropriations bills live within the confines of the budget that was passed within this House. Now, I can't say that's always been the case here. As we look back over the last 4 years prior to my coming here, that was definitely not the case in regards to living within a budget, living within our means.

Mr. Speaker, I've heard some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle complain about certain provisions in the underlying appropriations bills. Once again, I'd just like to remind our colleagues this is not the 111th Congress that you're used to. The beauty is that you have an open amendment process, one that did not exist in the last Congress. So you can offer whatever amendment you want as it relates to any of these issues--strike it, defund it, do whatever you want to it. You can do that on this floor. That's why we have the open amendment process.

Remember, it's different than it was in the 111th Congress--at least that's what I've read. You know, you get to vote on the issues that are important to the American people. I hope that anyone who opposes any one of the underlying bills will join me in supporting this rule because it gives you the ability to actually amend it and craft it in a way that you think is best for this country.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and encourage my colleagues to support it as well. We're talking about issues today that already have bipartisan agreement. You hear those on the other side of the aisle talk about issues that are in these appropriations bills, but they passed out of committee unanimously. Democrats and Republicans alike all voted for it unanimously to pass those out of committee. That's pretty telling in regards to what's contained within the appropriations bill. So I can't say it enough: they were passed out of committee unanimously, Democrats and Republicans alike, without dissension.

We're talking about funding the Federal Government, something that is fundamental to what we do, something that we have to do as a Member of Congress. And we're doing it in a fiscally responsible way that provides for our government, our veterans, our Homeland Security, and our intelligence community, while simultaneously taking steps to reduce Federal spending, which is what we have to do.

I commend the Appropriations and Select Intelligence Committees for their diligent, bipartisan work on these four underlying pieces of legislation. I commend Chairman Dreier and my fellow Rules Committee members on bringing these bills to the floor in an open process.

I know that my good friend from Florida likes the open process. We hear about it every time we have a Rules Committee meeting about the open process and the ability to amend it on the floor. ``Let the House work its will'' is what we talk about, and we have that opportunity. While some may not know how to do that because they just haven't had the experience, we're all in this together. We're learning as we go along what that open process means and allowing Democrats and Republicans alike to come to the floor and debate the issues that they want to make a piece of underlying legislation better.

That's what's good about this whole system. We know it can be better, and we're making sure that the House does work its will in allowing these amendments.

Mr. Speaker, it's about changing how we do business in this House, and we're taking one of the first steps in doing this through our appropriations process and having an open process to allow the ability to submit amendments on the House floor to make all of these pieces of legislation better. That's the goal. I know that's the goal on both sides of the aisle when they submit these amendments--I hope that is. We'll see how the House works its will on all of the amendments.

So I support this resolution, I support the open process, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. If they want to make a bill better, then offer the amendments on the floor on the three appropriations bills that you have the ability to do it on. Under the structured bill, there are already seven Democratic amendments made in order and two Republican.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An amendment to H. Res. 667 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause (b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

1519) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to

provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination

in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other

purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed

with. All points of order against consideration of the bill

are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and

shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by

the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on

Education and the Workforce. After general debate the bill

shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.

All points of order against provisions in the bill are

waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for

amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the

House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill

and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit with or without

instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports

that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the

next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the

third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,

resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of the bill specified in section 4 of this

resolution.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, on May 2, 2005, the Department of the Army authorized the creation of the Combat Action Badge. This badge provides special recognition for soldiers who personally engage the enemy or are engaged by the enemy during combat operations. The bayonet and grenade on the badge are associated with the act of combat. The oak wreath on the badge signifies strength and loyalty.

Current Army policy limits the eligibility to those individuals who meet the criteria of the Combat Action Badge after September 18, 2001. Unfortunately, this overlooks thousands of veterans who made similar sacrifices in previous wars. That's why I offered this amendment that would expand the eligibility for the Combat Action Badge to also include those who served honorably from December 7, 1941, to September 18, 2001.

Additionally, in accordance with the wishes of those veterans who approached me about the expanded eligibility of this badge, the costs of the Combat Action Badge would be borne by those individuals, not the taxpayers. Therefore, this measure will cost American taxpayers nothing.

I was proud to introduce this identical amendment last year to the National Defense Authorization Act, which passed the House en bloc. So I'm back this year continuing to fight for combat veterans of the past to receive the recognition they rightfully deserve. With that, I ask for your support.

I thank my fellow Rules Committee member, Dr. Foxx, for allowing me to speak on this issue not only for women but for all Americans. I also want to thank my Florida colleague Sandy Adams for her leadership shown on this issue.

I spent my entire career as a law enforcement officer, 36 years, and the last 10 years as a sheriff. When you are a cop, you usually don't get to see people in the best light. Getting called to somebody's house or somebody coming to your office isn't typically something that is a highlight of their day. It's because they are in need of help.

Throughout my entire career, I saw some of the worst that man has to

offer, and no small part of that was domestic violence. During my four decades as a cop and sheriff, I saw the results of domestic violence: battered partners, both men and women; children either physically or emotionally hurt in the crossfire between their fighting parents; victims who were suffering, scared, intimidated, and didn't know where to go for justice.

If you will look at the State of Florida and what it did with regards to domestic violence, it's clear that it was not just about a husband and wife. It's about those folks that live within a home. It's about their relationship within that home as it affects their children, as it affects each other. It doesn't specifically say that it has to be a man or a woman. It doesn't identify that. It talks about a relationship-- not a casual relationship, but a relationship where they're intimate with each other, they spend time with each other, they're sexually active with each other. It doesn't say that it has to be a man and a woman. It says, these individuals have certain rights under domestic violence law and also the ability to get an injunction for protection.

I have seen abusers on both sides. I have seen those who were married, those who were boyfriend and girlfriend, and those who were boyfriend and boyfriend or girlfriend and girlfriend commit atrocious crimes on each other. It had nothing to do with marriage. It had everything to do with the relationships that they had within their homes.

So as we move forward, those on the other side of the aisle want to add something to this piece of legislation that's already covered. It already covers those relationships. If you start defining a particular relationship, what if you leave one out? In here, it is very broad and allows us, in law enforcement, to be very protective of those that need protection. Whether it's stalking, intimidation, voyeurism, it doesn't matter. And oftentimes, women are the victims of domestic violence, but a man can just as easily be a victim of domestic violence, and I have seen that, too.

The Violence Against Women Act protects and prevents all types of intimate partner crime regardless of the gender of either the criminal or the victim. This legislation funds the programs that not only help men and women who have been hurt, but it also helps law enforcement prevent these crimes from ever happening.

I have heard a number of my colleagues talk about what isn't in the bill. They say, for example, it doesn't include ``sexual orientation'' as one of the protected classes. The Violence Against Women Act is and always has been gender-neutral. That's the beauty of this piece of legislation. It's gender-neutral.

Under the ``real'' VAWA, as some people call it, domestic violence is interpreted as intimate partner violence. It legally includes felony or misdemeanor crimes committed by spouses or ex-spouses, boyfriends or girlfriends, and ex-boyfriends or ex-girlfriends.

Now I'm not going to say this House legislation is perfect, but it makes significant improvements to streamline our Nation's domestic violence programs. In fact, the exact same funding authorization levels in the Senate bill is included in this bill, $680 million in funding per year for the next 5 years. Moreover, the manager's amendment brings the House even more in line with the Senate's authorization.

Madam Speaker, as you probably know, this week is National Police Week, and we certainly know about domestic violence. The men and women that worked for me, as a sheriff, knew about it. Sandy Adams, a former cop, introduced this legislation. And we've seen firsthand what domestic violence does to our families.

By passing this legislation, we get a step closer to making sure these victims receive the services they need. That's why I am encouraging my colleagues to support the rule, support this legislation, and let it get to conference with the Senate so we can bring these services to the men and women who need it the most.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reference to National Police Week, which is going on right now.

In 1962, President Kennedy proclaimed May 15 as National Peace Officers Memorial Day and the calendar week in which May 15 falls as National Police Week. This year's National Police Week is Sunday, May 13, through Saturday, May 19.

As George W. Bush once described it:

Peace Officers Memorial Day and Police Week pay tribute to

the local, State, and Federal law enforcement officers who

serve and protect us with courage and dedication. These

observances also remind us of the ongoing need to be vigilant

against all forms of crime, especially to acts of extreme

violence and terrorism.

On Sunday, May 13, I attended the candlelight vigil for our fallen officers from 2011. There were 163 peace officers who sacrificed their lives for us in the line of duty. Earlier today, I had the honor of attending the 31st National Police Officers Memorial Service right here on the front lawn of the Capitol. We honored over 19,000 law enforcement officers who have given their lives--the ultimate sacrifice--in the line of duty.

In 2011, 163 police officers gave their lives for this country. So far this year, we've lost over 40 officers in the line of duty. On July 3, 2011--and this is especially close to me--one of those who lost their lives was Hernando County Sheriff's Deputy John Mecklenburg, a deputy that I actually swore in to serve the citizens of Hernando County.

John died while in pursuit of a suspect and gave his life, and John left behind a wife, Penny, and two children. When he left that evening to go to work for the midnight shift, he had all expectations of coming home. But John gave the ultimate sacrifice for his county, for his State, and, ultimately, for his Nation.

I served as a police officer for 36 years before I came up here. I know what it is to go through the grief of losing one of our own. I want to thank the Fraternal Order of Police for highlighting this and working with the COPS organization to actually pay respect to those who have given the ultimate sacrifice.

We've been blessed in America, and we're protected by people who do it because it's the right thing to do, not because they're going to make a lot of money. They do it because they truly believe in the citizens that they serve. They do it with honor and dignity. And today, the President of the United States spoke to all of the survivors and police officers and their families that were in attendance on the front lawn of the Capitol, rightfully, as he should. We appreciate the President coming forward because it means so much to the survivors of a law enforcement officer who gave the ultimate sacrifice.

Once again, we've been blessed, Mr. Speaker, and we owe a debt of gratitude to our law enforcement officers who protect us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that we also keep our thoughts and prayers, not only for the law enforcement officers that are out there today at this very minute across the United States putting their lives on the line, but also remember those who are serving in harm's way in our military who also have given the fullest measure that they can, and that's their life, in defense of this country.

Mr. Speaker, God bless us and God bless America.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 631 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule, House Resolution 631. The rule provides for consideration of multiple pieces of legislation meant to provide solutions to some of today's most pressing threats and concerns. House Resolution 631 ensures that we'll be able to have a robust debate on important issues facing our Nation's cybersecurity infrastructure while also providing the path forward for student loan legislation that reflects quick action we need to take on this pressing issue.

First, House Resolution 631 gives this House the opportunity to be a leader when it comes to our Nation's cybersecurity needs. The rule also sets up the opportunity for us to vote tomorrow on a measure that addresses our Nation's student loan programs. Without this legislation, Americans with Federal student loans will see their rate double starting in July.

These are issues that cannot wait. Our Nation's security cannot wait. At a time when our workforce is so bleak and President Obama's policies keep digging us deeper and deeper into a financial hole, we cannot wait on finding a solution for those young people with student loan debt who are still trying to find a place in our workforce.

We all know that the Internet has fundamentally changed the way we live our lives day-to-day. I think it's safe to say that even 20 years ago, many of us in this room couldn't have imagined that one day we would live in a world where we could do almost anything we wanted, be it buy groceries, run a business, or talk to a loved one serving our country overseas, through a computer. The Internet has made all this possible.

But for all the ways the Internet has made life, business, and even government, to some extent, faster, more responsive, and more transparent, it has also opened us up to new threats. U.S. companies report an onslaught of cyberintrusions that steal sensitive information. Even our own government has suffered from cyberattacks. This type of rampant Internet theft not only costs American companies valuable information, intellectual property, and research and development work, it also costs American workers their jobs. It's hard to say exactly how much cyberattacks cost our Nation's economy, but they could cost as much as $400 billion a year, according to one report from the Computer Security Institute and the FBI.

Today, the House will begin consideration of a bill that will help protect our Nation from these kinds of threats. H.R. 3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, would allow private companies to voluntarily share information with each other and with the government in a sort of public-private Internet security partnership. The bill includes significant safeguards to protect personal and private information. It significantly limits the Federal Government's use of that information that the private companies voluntarily provide, including the government's ability to search data.

It requires that the independent inspector general for the intelligence community audit information shared with the government and report the results to Congress to ensure regular oversight. It also encourages the private sector to make the information it shares with others, including the government, as anonymous as possible.

This is a strongly bipartisan piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, that was passed out of the Intelligence Committee with an overwhelming vote of 17 1. In the Rules Committee yesterday, we heard testimony from both sides, speaking to the cooperative, bipartisan work that was done in this piece of legislation. I commend the work that the Intelligence Committee did with members on both sides of the aisle, as well as with private sector companies, trade groups, privacy and

civil liberty advocates, and the executive branch. It's because of these efforts that virtually every sector of the economy supports this legislation. It's also why there are more than 100 cosponsors of this legislation, including 11 committee chairmen.

But recognizing that we don't always face one problem at a time, this rule also provides for consideration of a measure to address student loans. Our legislation, the Interest Rate Reduction Act, would prevent federally subsidized student loan interest rates on new loan disbursements from doubling to 6.8 percent from the current 3.4 percent on July 1 of this year. This 1-year measure would cost the government $5.9 billion.

Now, you all probably heard me talk again and again about bringing our Nation back to its core mission. You've also heard me talk about how we need to cut back on the ``nice-to-haves'' and make hard choices of what we will and won't pay for. Back when the previous majority passed their health care takeover in 2010, they paid for it, in part, by taking $9 billion from college financial aid trust funds. Now that they've robbed Peter to pay Paul, they're realizing Peter still needs that money, too. To resolve the problem, the Interest Rate Reduction Act pays for this stopgap measure by taking some of that stolen money back from the ObamaCare slush fund and redirecting it to student financial aid.

Sometimes this House has to multitask, Mr. Speaker. As we face an economy that can't afford to lose any more jobs to cyberattacks and college loan recipients who can't find a job thanks to President Obama's failed policies, that is one of those times. House Resolution 631 provides the House with a way forward on both of these critical measures.

With that, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, ``yes'' on the underlying pieces of legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute, if he needs it.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I do not.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I've been here now 1 year and 4 months, and I'm always amazed at what we hear from the other side. I hear about how this is supposed to be an attack on women's health. You know, it's interesting because that's the position that President Obama's taken. I understand that that's the position that my friends on the other side of the aisle have taken, but it's not true.

You know, yesterday in markup in Energy and Commerce in regards to this pay-for, they talked about a number of issues in regards to this slush fund that HHS has. Now, it's interesting, part of that slush fund comes out to a partly paid for by the U.S. Department Health and Human Services, the Department's Communities Putting Prevention to Work campaign.

It's $100 million. Part of it was in spaying and neutering pets, which I agree with, but I don't see how that is taking money away from women's health. If you go on to HHS' Web site, where they actually chronicle the spending from this slush fund, not one place does it talk about cervical cancer or breast cancer in regards to the dollars spent. So to stand here on this floor and accuse Republicans of being against women and women's health when the facts don't back it up--if you go to HHS' Web site, you will see specifically where the money has been spent. Like I said, in one area it is $100 million. The other area that they've gone after is media campaigns as they relate to soda, fast- foods, and others. That's not women's health.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrats would like you to forget that in 2010, they took over $9 billion away from student financial aid. The same argument that they're making today, they took it away. I wasn't here in 2010, so it's kind of hard to have your cake and eat it, too. When we say robbing from Peter to pay Paul, and now Peter needs the money, those are students that need the money. Those are students that can't afford to pay additional interest on loans that they're already having a hard time paying off because they are trying to find a job.

Mr. Speaker, we've heard so much about cybersecurity today, but remember that the committee started their work on cybersecurity over a year ago in regards to hearings and working in a bipartisan way that produced a bill that was overwhelmingly bipartisan, 17 1. In this Congress, that's pretty difficult to do. But they saw the need based upon their experience within where we stand today as it relates to threats against our infrastructure, those people that actually create jobs, and against our government.

Not only have they worked tirelessly amongst themselves, but they reached out to other stakeholders in a way that I believe has been unprecedented in regards to trying to craft a bill that, while not perfect, is a step in the right direction.

This isn't about government coming in--you heard one gentleman up here talking about how government should tell businesses what to do. Folks, this is America. This is about freedom for businesses. If they don't act upon information, shame on them. It's not about

government takeover of private businesses that tells them how to operate. It is about, though, the ability of government to help formulate the aspect of protecting our cybersecurity. It's all about that. It's about sharing of information. It's about right now the Federal Government is precluded from sharing information to help alert those businesses out there to protect themselves. We know about it, and we can't even tell them.

That was one of the inherent problems we had back in 9/11, the fact that we couldn't talk to each other, that agencies didn't talk and share information. Now we want to set ourselves up for a greater catastrophe, one that could bring this Nation down to its knees or worse.

You heard about regular order or not regular order. We had regular order on the cybersecurity bill, and it's not enough. Sixteen amendments were made in order. The gentleman from Colorado's amendment was made in order. Five privacy-related amendments were made in order, two Republican and three of those bipartisan. Of the total of those 16 amendments made in order, eight were Republican, four were Democrats, and four were bipartisan. Mr. Speaker, I believe in regular order, and I think that was a perfect example of how this House is supposed to work. That was regular order at its best.

We talk about a fair and open process. I want to make sure that we protect the American people; that when you go to bed tonight, your financial information is still going to be secure tomorrow, that you're going to have the ability to protect yourself financially. One of those is to allow businesses to share cyberthreats that are made against them and others, and also for the Federal Government to share when they see a cyberthreat coming that could affect a business today in America.

HHS has discretion on how they spend that slush fund. Remember, that money was stolen from students back in 2010 to provide for their education. It was stolen. Call it what you want, but now it's just righting a wrong. It's about making sure that our students have the ability to get an education and hopefully get a great job.

I also heard my good friend from Colorado mention about how we're going to make a decision as to who's a national security threat. He mentioned the Tea Party in the same word with Communists. I think it's pretty clear that the Tea Party is not a national security threat and communism is. I don't think that takes a whole lot of rocket science.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I get what you're saying. But at the end of the day when you're trying to say, I guess, a description in regards to that, and you say Communists and then you say Tea Party, I think it's pretty clear. The Tea Party is not a threat to national security. Communism is and has been.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and encourage my colleagues to support it as well.

We're talking about two issues here today that have a lot of bipartisan agreement. Our Nation's cybersecurity is just an integral part of our national security as a whole. It's part--not all--but part of our national security as a whole. And we agree something must be done with our Nation's students as it relates to the loan debt that they have. These are issues that I think we all agree on, Democrats and Republicans alike.

I know from some of our previous conversations that my friend, Mr. Polis, is a fan of NPR. So I wanted to let him know this, just in case he didn't. This morning NPR did a story about the fact that China and Russia aren't the only threats to our Nation's cybersecurity anymore. In fact, according to the story today, the newest cybersecurity threat we face today is going to continue and grow, and it's from Iran. Even though Iran may not have as strong a cyberpresence now as Russia and China do, it's continuing to grow. It's growing at the same time as their nuclear program is growing, too. Iran has learned how to manipulate the Internet to shut down protesters in their own country, to hack Web sites that have antigovernment messages, and carry out sophisticated cyberattacks in their own country to identify those dissidents who may disagree with the government. With threats like that growing every day, we need to make sure our networks here at home in America are safe and secure.

This bipartisan--I can't stress this enough--this bipartisan Rogers cybersecurity bill is critical. It's a critical step in ensuring America and our private industry are safe from cyberattacks. We talk about bipartisan a lot in this Chamber. We don't always practice it. This committee not only practiced it, but they reached outside of the committee itself to those that may be supportive and may be opposed, and they tried to work and put forth amendments that would make this a better bill.

That's what it's all about, the amendment process, is to make something better, nor tear it down. So I encourage colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this strongly bipartisan legislation both on cybersecurity and protecting our students and student loans.

As the President begins his taxpayer-funded college tour, which is really more like a reelection tour, he's going to be talking a lot about student loan debt. Well, he can talk all he wants because in this House we're going to act--and we're going to do it in a way that fixes a problem that was a temporary fix for 5 years.

Well, guess what. We're going to fix it again. We're going to make sure that our students have the ability to get a college education and be able to pay it back in a way that they can be successful in the future. We're going to make sure that the ratio of the student loan rates don't double come this July 1.

In Washington-speak, to a lot of people, that's a ways off. But up here, this House, this Congress has kicked cans down the road before to the tune of 20 years when they're looking out and saying, oh, we've got plenty of time, and all of sudden we have other issues facing this country--and now we have one here.

This House is taking action to correct a wrong or a problem that exists today in America, both in cybersecurity and in student loans, and we're going to do it without costing the taxpayers anything by taking money out of the ObamaCare slush fund, which was funded by cuts to student loan programs to begin with, and sending it back to our student loans.

Now remember, this slush fund can be used for anything. As we saw, they used it for a whole bunch of things. As they tried to link us to women's health issues, not one of those were related to that. Not one nickle or dime was spent on those, even though they would like to say it was.

So, Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and the underlying legislation.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 34 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, April 26, 2012, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here.

Madam Speaker, we hear so much out here on the House floor. I support the rule and the underlying legislation because it gives the ability to small businesses to create jobs here in America. It allows people to go back to work. Those folks, when they go back to work, actually pay taxes. They start contributing as citizens of this great country.

This small business group tax deduction affects small businesses that are minority-owned, that are women-owned, that are veteran-owned businesses. You hear all this talk about how it affects all these other folks, but this is really about creating jobs in America. It's about allowing people that are entrepreneurs to utilize the resources that they've worked hard for and their employees have worked hard for to create additional jobs.

You've heard a whole lot of stuff down here about transportation. The transportation bill expired back in September of 2009. My good friend from Florida, I agree with you, we should have a long-term transportation bill. But what did you do since 2009? I got up here in 2011. We're still talking about the lack of action by this Congress, by the Senate, and by this President since 2009 to get Americans back to work.

When you talk to those that are small businesses that actually do the work on roads, they said if you do a 90-day, a 2-year extension, we're not going to add jobs. We're going to be able to keep the jobs that we have, but we're not going to add jobs. We're not going to be buying equipment from Caterpillar up in Peoria, Illinois, and putting people to work in Illinois. We've already canceled those jobs.

So, Madam Speaker, this is about America. This is about actually looking people in the eye, those that actually create jobs. Remember, small businesses create over 70 percent of the new jobs in America. We're making them the villain in this instead of returning it back and saying, you know, small businesses and entrepreneurs, they're going to use the money to grow their business. That's why they're in it. That's why they get into this whole thing in regards to putting their risk, their money, and their reputations at stake.

You hear about class warfare. We heard it here today.

And I agree about comprehensive tax reform. I'll give you the best comprehensive tax reform. Why don't we move to the fair tax?

Why don't we move to the fact that we can encourage our small businesses and businesses in America that can compete globally instead of under a tax burden and debt that we have here in America?

We have the ability to move forward and do the right thing. Let's not get caught up in the semantics and the political rhetoric. Let's really stand here and do the right thing for small businesses to allow them, Madam Speaker, to create the jobs that we know they can. I have the utmost confidence in small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Florida and fellow Rules Committee member to allow me to speak today on behalf of this.

It's interesting to stand up here and listen to what comes across from the other side. They talk about the FAA bill. That's a bill that while they were in control of this area, since 2007, there was not a reauthorization of that bill until this year, until the 112th Congress came into power. We now have a 4-year reauthorization of the FAA bill that sat over on the other side while they had control of this House since 2007. There's been no action other than just temporary fixes. The same goes now with this bill today in regards to transportation.

They want you to believe that the Senate passed this great bill out of the Senate, a 2-year fix. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, a 2-year fix in this industry is like nothing at all.

In speaking with developers and road construction folks in my State, they said a 6-month extension is as good as a 2-year extension, and basically all it does is keep their doors open. They don't hire new folks; they don't go out and purchase new equipment; they don't go to Caterpillar up in Peoria, Illinois, and buy more equipment. What they told me was that when the Senate came back out with an 18-month and 2- year extension, they canceled major equipment orders in Peoria, Illinois. They canceled those orders because there's no reason for them to invest millions of dollars in equipment on a 6-month, an 18-month, or a 2-year extension.

We should be standing here talking today about a 5- to 7-year extension of the highway bill. That's what we should be talking about. That gives those builders some certainty.

We talk about certainty. The other side talks about it at great length, but what certainty did they show when they had control of both houses, the Senate and the House, and the President? What did they show for an accomplishment, other than short-term fixes that have nothing to do with certainty? The construction industry hires based upon certainty, how far they can look out.

A major road builder that I talked to said: ``Listen, Rich, it's just not going to work that way.''

Mr. Speaker, what they're saying to us is that for them to spend money to hire new workers, they need to have some certainty that they're going to have a 5- to 7-year window to start building upon, not a 6-month fix, not an 18-month fix, not a 2-year fix.

Once again, the builders I'm talking to are saying that on these short-term fixes, all it does is keep the status quo alive. It allows them to keep the employees that they have, but they will not invest in new equipment, and they're not going to invest in hiring new employees because it's a short-term fix for them, not a long-term fix.

We had the opportunity to do a pay-for, and I agree with my friend from Worcester when we talk about we should have a pay-for 5- to 7-year transportation bill, not a short-term fix. But if we don't do a short- term fix today--you heard my colleague from Florida talk about what's going to happen on Sunday--all projects stop as we know it. That's not what this House should do. We need to pass the 90-day extension. We need to support this rule and pass the bill so we can eliminate uncertainty, not what we have today.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 108, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 591 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself as much time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule, House Resolution 591.

H. Res. 591 provides a structured rule so that the House may consider H.R. 5, the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare Act of 2012. The rule provides for 6 hours of debate on this vital issue.

In my opinion, the HEALTH Act is one of the most imperative pieces of legislation to come to the floor of the House in the 112th Congress thus far. The bill repeals a particularly egregious part of the government takeover of health care: the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB.

In case you're not aware, IPAB is the 15-member panel created by ObamaCare to rein in Medicare costs. IPAB is made up of 15 unelected bureaucrats. The majority are not doctors, and their decisions will have the force of law and will go into effect automatically without the consent of Congress. We'll get back to IPAB in a moment.

H.R. 5 also implements long-needed medical malpractice tort reform. I hear all the time that we need to bring down the cost of health care. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that the government takeover of health care would do just that, reduce the cost of health care.

In fact, President Obama claimed it would lower premiums by $2,500 per family per year. We know that's just not the case. Since inauguration day in 2009, premiums have risen by $2,213, almost the same amount the President promised he was going to save us. The annual Kaiser Foundation survey of employer-provided insurance found that average family premiums totaled $12,860 in 2008 and are now $15,073 in 2011. Moreover, the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, projects the law's new benefit mandates will force premiums to rise on top of that $15,000 by $2,100 per year per family.

Malpractice reform, on the other hand, will most definitely reduce the cost of health care. We've seen what defensive medicine is: CAT scans ordered, antibiotics prescribed, blood tests conducted--not because the doctor thought they were necessary, but because he or she was scared that if they didn't order them they would be sued for not prescribing them.

A Department of Health and Human Services study said that defensive medicine costs between $70 billion to $126 billion a year. That's billions. The CBO estimate takes a little more moderate stance, putting that number around $54 billion. Let me tell you, $54 billion, $70 billion, $126 billion, that's a lot of money in anybody's terms.

I've heard from a lot of folks they are opposing the legislation because it defies States' rights. I have to say I'm particularly surprised to hear so many of my colleagues on the other side making this argument. I'm happy to see they've come to recognize the importance of States' rights and of State sovereignty. I hope that means that we can count on them for their support and efforts in moving forward to take Federal power away from Washington, D.C., and return that power back to the States, where it belongs and where our Founding Fathers envisioned it to be.

I want to take a moment to make it clear to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle why this bill, H.R. 5, does not trample on the rights of our States.

In the modern era, Congress has enacted many Federal tort reform statutes to supersede contrary State laws, including recent Federal tort reform protecting the vital domestic firearms industry, and judicial precedents leave little doubt as to their constitutionality. Even President Reagan, who was an unabashed champion for the States, established a special task force to study the need for tort reform, which concluded that the Federal Government should address tort reform across the board.

I fear that the folks who are claiming the 10th Amendment and States' rights aren't looking at the entirety of H.R. 5. They aren't looking at all of the provisions that make it clear that the caps created in this bill only apply to States that don't already have their own caps.

These provisions--``flexi-cap'' they are called--recognize that any State amount on caps takes precedence to this piece of legislation. That means if a State has a billion-dollar cap, good for them, let them keep it. It also means that if a State has a $100,000 cap, they can keep it, too. If a State decides to pass a law and establish a cap on their own to change their existing cap, they should go ahead and do it because H.R. 5 isn't going to do anything to stop them from doing that.

H.R. 5 clearly ensures that it is a State's right to set its caps where it wants them. I understand that trial lawyers won't like the Federal limit. Luckily, I really worry about the American people as a whole, not just what trial lawyers have to say.

I know this may be speculation, but I think that special interest groups and, perhaps, some of the new converts to the 10th Amendment are hiding behind the States' rights argument because, in fact, they just don't want to see their own profits go down. But I fear that the States' rights discussion is a red herring that only gets us off the most important issue, the issue that I started off with, the Independent Payment Advisory Board. Plain and simple, IPAB is going to cut the health care that our Nation's seniors can receive.

This Medicare-rationing board, which is what this is, will decide the value of medical services and impose price controls that will slash senior access to doctors and other health care providers. We see this happening already.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services actuary has confirmed that large reductions in Medicare payment rates to physicians would likely have serious implications for beneficiary access to care, utilization, intensity, and the quality of that care. As Donald Berwick, President Obama's appointee as the Medicare administrator, said:

The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The

decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.

H.R. 5 takes that choice away from Administrator Berwick, from IPAB, and from President Obama. H.R. 5 sets forth a new way forward, a way that says we don't need Washington bureaucrats, who haven't even practiced medicine, telling us what's best for us.

We need to sit down with our doctors and come up with individual treatment

plans, a way that actually does something about health care costs by removing frivolous lawsuits from the equation, a way forward that means States' rights are still protected while also protecting seniors' rights to the best health care options available.

Madam Speaker, I support this rule, and I support the underlying legislation, and I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my fellow member of the Rules Committee, a freshman, Rob Woodall from Georgia.

Madam Speaker, I love the hyperbole. I love my friend from Florida's passionate discourse earlier in this conversation. But he was right. You can't have it both ways.

Here's the problem. In their idea of having it both ways, they talk about medical malpractice as if, if we do nothing, things get better. If we ignore tort reform, things get better. If we ignore tort reform, costs of health care will stay the same. Well, in fact, it hasn't. It continues to rise.

We talk about higher health care costs, but when we talk about that and we talk about IPAB in particular, 15--15--unelected bureaucrats. The maximum number that can be on that panel is seven physicians-- seven--so they're outvoted already. They're outvoted 8 7. No matter what they think is the proper care for a patient, they're going to be overridden by eight other bureaucrats that have nothing to do with providing health care to our seniors--not a thing.

It's all going to be about costs. And they're right: that's how you're going to contain costs, by removing the options for seniors to get the medical care that they deserve and that they need.

This independent panel is a rationing board. It's going to ration health care out because that's the only way that panel can save money for the Affordable Care Act. It was designed that way. It was designed to keep us--the American people that are going to use that service, that medical care--from getting it because physicians, when they get their payments cut, will no longer offer service. So where are we supposed to go? That is rationing. That's taking away service from people that need it the most, from those seniors that have paid into this system for their lifetimes and who are now depending on it to be there when they medically need it the most.

This is about the seniors that are in my district. I have 250,000 seniors, a quarter of a million, that rely upon Medicare. And if we're going to start rationing care to them, I think it's immoral, it's unethical, and it's not the way we should be doing it. We should be doing it by the free market. We should be talking about tort reform. Everybody agrees we need tort reform. Even the gentleman from Florida talked about the high cost of medical malpractice insurance. Well, where does that come from? It doesn't just spring up out of the Earth. It comes up because of a reason: because of the increased cost to provide medical malpractice. And, particularly for doctors, where it drives up the cost of medical care is that defensive medical care. That's what's driving up the cost along with the premiums that they have to pay because of the lack of tort reform.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have to agree with my good friend from Florida on one issue, and that's in regard to rationing. You're right, it's not in the act. But if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it's a duck, because this board, this unelected board, is going to make decisions that Congress can't even touch. This board is going to say, this is the amount of money we will pay for this procedure. It doesn't matter if that's what the procedure costs. It doesn't matter that this doesn't cover the cost of the physician. It doesn't matter that what's going to happen is our physicians are going to refuse to see those patients.

Madam Speaker, that is rationing. Call it what you want. That is rationing when you have an independent board that can make decisions in regard to the cost of services that you're going to make or decisions for you to have services by a particular doctor. We see it already today. In my physician's office it already says, ``We do not take new Medicare patients.''

It's going to get worse. And this board, while it may not call it ``rationing''--I give them great credit for not putting that in the terminology of the Affordable Care Act--it is rationing no matter what you call it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

If you look at what the Ryan plan said, it also talks about what we currently have today and that, if you want to keep what you have today in the way of Medicare, you keep it. But if you want to go out and buy your own insurance through a select group, you can do it, just as you can today, in regards to Medicare Advantage, but that's a choice that I can make.

I thank you for giving me the time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire of my good friend from Florida how many more speakers he may have.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I'm a little confused because I thought we were talking about other issues than what the gentleman was just speaking to, particularly as relates to IPAB and about tort reform.

I'll be happy to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I appreciate my good friend's confession about being a trial lawyer. I'm not. I'm not an attorney. So what I'm worried about is not how attorneys enrich themselves; I'm worried about the people that I represent, the 250,000-plus that are on Medicare. I'm concerned about them.

You hear from the other side, well, don't worry about it. It could be 5, 10 years from now. Well, you know what? I'm concerned now because why would you have something put in place that's going to ration care to our seniors when they need it the most? That's when they need it the most. We should be advocating for them, not for trial lawyers. We should be here talking about tort reform to lower the cost. If you look at what California did, they're a model. They set up a model program. Their liability insurance for doctors is lower than the average across the board in the United States. This act, the HEALTH Act, is modeled after that.

In regards to the noneconomic damages, limits on contingency fees for lawyers, big one there; about fair share, about proportional, whoever's at fault. It's a proportion of that reference to how the claim gets paid out. And I heard this talked about before: But will the health care act work to reduce health care costs and lower the deficit? According to the CBO, it will. It will be an average of 25 to 30 percent below what it would be under current law, which is IPAB today, 25 to 30 percent less than what the current law, IPAB, calls for.

Is this important? I think the relationship between a patient and a doctor should be between a patient and a doctor and not have a middleman, called the United States Government, stepping in between you to say, ``You know what? We don't think that that service deserves a certain level of payment,'' and by reducing that payment we know that that service is not going to be provided. I truly don't believe that that's where we should be as a government, and I certainly don't believe that we should be in between the patients and their physicians.

I also worry about--and I hear this from docs all the time back in my district--Rich, you know what's going to happen? We're just going to close our doors. Those that are entering the profession, there's less and less because they're concerned about how they're going to make a living, how they're going to pay back those student loans that they have, because they really want to pay it back. They want to do the right thing. But how are they going to do that if they can't open a practice and if they can't take Medicare patients because this board makes a decision to lower the cost of reimbursement?

We've seen it already. Every time we do a doc fix, we have more and more doctors that are in trouble because of the fact they don't know what tomorrow's going to bring, and I don't want our seniors to worry about what tomorrow is going to bring. I don't want to balance the budget on the back of our seniors. That's not where we need to be.

As we move along here, the reason I stand here today is that I support and I will defend our seniors, which is why I support H.R. 5, because it's common sense.

Like I said, I'm not an attorney. I'm not a lawyer, so I have but one constituency that I worry about at this point on this particular issue, and it is this issue. You put all kinds of other stuff out there about transportation and all these things, but this is the pressing issue today in front of us. The issue is about tort reform. The issue is about IPAB and repealing IPAB so our seniors can have a direct relationship with a physician of their choice, and that's the important part.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 591 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole

House on the state of the Union for consideration of a bill

consisting of the text of the bill (H.R. 14) to reauthorize

Federal-aid highway and highway safety construction programs,

and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall

be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration

of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to

the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of , the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. After general

debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the

five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in

the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of

the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report

the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been

adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered

on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or

without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and

reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then

on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately

after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of

rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of the bill specified in section 2 of this

resolution.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.